ABC
Case Number: 1:2020cv07889
Filed: October 5, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 Trademark Infringement
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 31 FINAL DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER: Judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff on all claims properly pled against Defaulting Defendants in the Complaint; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that because it would serve both the compensatory and punitive purposes of the Lanham Act's prohibitions on willful infringement and the Copyright Act's prohibitions on willful infringement, and because Plaintiff has sufficiently set forth the basis for the statutory damages award requested in its Motion for Default Judgment, the Court finds such an award to be reasonable and Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $50,000.00 ("Defaulting Defendants' Individual Damages Award") against each of the twenty-nine (29) Defaulting Defendants pursuant to Section 15 U.S.C. § l l 17(c) of the Lanham Act and Section 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) of the Copyright Act for a total of One Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($ ;1,450,000.00) ("Defaulting Defendants' Collective Damages Award"), as well as post-judgment interest calculated at the statutory rate as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 196l(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Defaulti ng Defendants, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with or under the direction of Defaulting Defendants (regardless of whether located in the United States or abroad), who receive actual notice of this Order are permanently enjoined and restrained from: as further set forth herein. Any failure by Defaulting Defendants to comply with the terms of this Order shall be deemed contempt of Court, subjecting Defaulting Defendants to contempt remedie s to be determined by the Court, including fines and seizure of property; The Court releases the Ten Thousand U.S. Dollar ($10,000.00) security bond that Plaintiff submitted in connection with this action to counsel for Plaintiff, Epstein Drang el, LLP, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1250, New York, NY 10165; and This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties in order to construe and enforce this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/29/2022) (kv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
June 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER: Counsel in the above-captioned cases were advised to inform the Court by September 2, 2021 if they believed there were any issues remaining in the cases or to otherwise seek default judgment against any remaining defendants. Counsel has no t done so, nor taken any action in either case in over a year. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the cases as abandoned as to all remaining defendants. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment and close the cases. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/17/2022) (kv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
May 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 18 MEMORANDUM ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Primrose's motion for additional attorney's fees, ECF No. 49, is denied. Separately, the Court notes that none of the remaining defendants in these consolidated actions have timely responded to the complaints, yet, following the issuance of a preliminary injunction last October, plaintiff has taken no further action. If plaintiff wishes to move for default judgment, it should seek issuance of certificates of default from the Clerk and then call Chambers, pursuant to this Court's Individual Rules, to schedule briefing on a motion for default judgment. If plaintiff does not seek certificates of default or otherwise advance these actions by June 1, 2021, the Court will dismiss them with prejudice for failure to prosecute. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/18/2021) (kv)
December 7, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 17 OPINION AND ORDER: re: (43 in 1:20-cv-07890-JSR) FIRST MOTION for Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 65(C). filed by THE PRIMROSE LANE. For the foregoing reasons, Primrose's motion for damages is granted. The Clerk's Office is r espectfully directed to deduct $5,400 from the bond posted by Smart Study in Smart Study v. B+Baby Store, 20-cv-7890 (JSR), and to promptly disburse those funds to The Primrose Lane, LLC. Because a preliminary injunction (granted as to other defendants following the TRO) remains pending in these actions with respect to other defendants, Smart Study is ordered to post an additional $5,400 bond to restore the bond to $10,000 by no later than Friday, December 11, 2020. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 12/7/2020) (js) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
October 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER: For these reasons and the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, see Oct. 16, 2020 Tr. (to be docketed), the Court orders as follows: 1. With respect to all remaining defendants, defendants having offered no evidence to the contrary, the Court adheres to its preliminary findings of fact and preliminary conclusions of law and, on that basis, converts the TRO into a preliminary injunction pending trial. 2. With respect to Primrose, the Court grants leave for it to file a motion for da mages with evidence by no later than October 27, 2020. Plaintiff may respond by no later than November 3, 2020. Primrose may reply by no later than November 10, 2020. The Court will hear telephonic oral argument on the motion on November 18, 2020, at 4pm, using the same dial-in information used for the October 16, 2020 teleconference. 3. The remaining defendants are warned that if they do not timely appear and respond to the Complaint, then plaintiff may secure a default judgment against them, i n which case the Court would convert this preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction. (Motions due by 10/27/2020. Responses due by 11/3/2020. Replies due by 11/10/2020. Telephone Conference set for 11/18/2020 at 04:00 PM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/16/2020) (jwh)
October 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER TEMPORARILY SEALING FILE. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall maintain the documents associated with the above-referenced action, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs Complaint and exhibits attached thereto and Plaint iffs ex parte application for: 1) a temporary restraining order; 2) an order restraining Merchant Storefronts and Defendants' Assets with the Financial Institutions; 3) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue; 4) an order authorizing bifurcated and alternative service; and 5) an order authorizing expedited discovery and the supporting declarations of Su Jeong Yang and Danielle S. Yarnali and exhibits attached thereto under seal for a period of one (1) week, or u ntil further order by the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that, notwithstanding this Order to Temporarily Seal File, the Clerk of the Court shall have authority to provide Plaintiff with certified copies of any orders entered in this matter under seal. ***Previously filed under seal in envelope #2, and unsealed by docket entry 3*** (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/5/2020) (nb)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ABC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?